Asserting mutual corroboration from several allegations commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. It assumes the truth of the very proposition to be tested. We haven't yet determined whether each allegation is true, so none can be corroborative of the others.

In recent years there have been several attempts to erode what you Americans call due process, starting with sexual allegations. Campaigns like always believing the woman (what about male victims of rape??), rape shield laws and allowing criminal prosecutions based only on an accusation with no supporting evidence. These erode important and hard-won principles like the presumption of innocence and equality of arms. This has occurred across the Anglophone world, with Canada and England leading the way. Just recently, it seems that the state criminal justice apparatus (police, courts and prisons/probation etc) are now to be bypassed as all too difficult and inconvenient. Much easier to splatter allegations across social media and news media. The examination of the issues is conducted, as Dusty says, in the media and not in a court governed by well-established rules. Punishment is usually in the form of losing job and livelihood, family and friends. This is not the way we deal with criminal behaviour in civilised democracies. The process applied is more akin to the Lynch mob, which I assume you Americans don't want to go back to.

Even more recently, there seems to be a campaign against elected representatives. I grace several countries with my presence on a regular basis and have seen near-identical stories about 'politician perverts.' Many of the claims are really innocuous, hand-on-knee-in-1979 stuff, and not anywhere near the threshold of criminal conduct. But what counts is the damage to reputation, forcing an extra-judicial punishment of resignation and loss of career. The stories are so similar and have come out so close together that I wonder whether there is an element of coordination behind the scenes.

My recommendation to posters on this thread therefore, is to stop squabbling about political partisan sides and et tu quoque. The danger here is that democratic mandates are being undermined by (I can't resist the mixed metaphor) kneejerk fingerpointing which is only scrutinised according to current journalistic standards ie not very well. Beware.

Well given the abysmally low rate of conviction (let alone the rate of charges being brought and let alone the rate of actual denunciations), clearly these "important and hard-won principles" are failing victims in this particular area.

How exactly do you prove the absence of sexual consent beyond reasonable doubt? How exactly do you prove beyond reasonable doubt that certain actions constituted harassment and not simple flirting?

Yeah, good luck with that...

And by the way, your mention of male victims in opposition to "believing the woman" is a very stupid argument and obvious fallacy. One doesn't have to disbelieve male victims to believe female victims. There is no opposition there. There is a big stigma on male victims that prevents them coming forward. There is one on female victims too, they are of a different nature, yet both are results and symptoms of how patriarchy messes us up.

Males often don't come forward because they are afraid of being seen by others as weak to have been a victim of a female (or they feel weak themselves and are attacked in their "masculinity"), females don't because in many cases it would lead to marginalization, whether economic (loss of job or future employability in their field in cases where their abuser is an authority figure), social (how many rape victims who came out became parias for daring to accuse a well-respected man? how many friends do rape victims lose when their abuser is in the same social circles), or sexual (female victims' sex lives are almost systematically scrutinized, if not in court, in the media or public opinion, in an effort to demonstrate that they're really just promiscuous women incapable of refusing consent...).

In both cases the stigma stems directly from patriarchal ideas deeply entrenched in our society and how we define masculinity, feminity and the roles of genders. In both cases it's regrettable and we can only wish, in everyone's best interest, to eliminate those sources of stigma so that all victims feel comfortable coming forward. And in both cases it goes to prove that the justice system in its current form is not adapted to deal with the vast majority of sexual abuse cases.

Again, hypocrisy is about a person and their own standards. Not others. Have evangelicals and the conservative right lost their morals and ethics so much that they have none of their own to look at or uphold?

@BOB: There was a really telling piece on public radio this morning about how evangelicals have had to morally compromise in the Trump era, and what that means for their internal culture. I'm a highly religious individual who tends to vote in line with those values, but I could never imagine the mental and ethical contortions that the evangelical right has had to do to maintain party purity.

Of interest here... a picture surfaces of Al Franken making a horrible joke and a story of harassing a female comedian, photo looked older I haven't read when it happened yet. Guess what, that was wrong, too. McConnell came out saying he wants the ethics committee to investigate. Methinks that committee will be really busy if that is the chosen path.

My favorite part, I saw a couple of conservatives noting that the only solution is to have robot politicians. Funny that their brains went there rather than just electing women.

It will be interesting to see if Franken survives this. My initial guess is that he would if the picture is all there was... but he was a comedian on the road and in a lot of writers rooms... Places not known for good behavior.

Weiner dude denied it, and he was attacked for it. Spacey and CK acknowledged and apologized. still attacked for it.

Is there anything wanted other than simply attacking and trying to take down anyone who has had a single incident of sexual misconduct in their past?

And is there a time limit? The current environment my be against certain things, but standards were different 30 years ago. Are we necessarily going to try to apply standards of today to the time of then?

Otherwise... especially as this gets into claim of "harassment" rather than the underage sex or self sex acts... yeah, that pool gets VERY large.

Weiner dude denied it, and he was attacked for it. Spacey and CK acknowledged and apologized. still attacked for it.

Is there anything wanted other than simply attacking and trying to take down anyone who has had a single incident of sexual misconduct in their past?

And is there a time limit? The current environment my be against certain things, but standards were different 30 years ago. Are we necessarily going to try to apply standards of today to the time of then?

Otherwise... especially as this gets into claim of "harassment" rather than the underage sex or self sex acts... yeah, that pool gets VERY large.

Let's watch the reaction to Franken's statement. All of the other statements were not statement of actual apology. Franken takes a different route:

Quote

"The first thing I want to do is apologize: to Leeann, to everyone else who was part of that tour, to everyone who has worked for me, to everyone I represent, and to everyone who counts on me to be an ally and supporter and champion of women. There's more I want to say, but the first and most important thing—and if it's the only thing you care to hear, that's fine—is: I'm sorry.I respect women. I don't respect men who don't. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed.But I want to say something else, too. Over the last few months, all of us—including and especially men who respect women—have been forced to take a good, hard look at our own actions and think (perhaps, shamefully, for the first time) about how those actions have affected women.For instance, that picture. I don't know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn't matter. There's no excuse. I look at it now and I feel disgusted with myself. It isn't funny. It's completely inappropriate. It's obvious how Leeann would feel violated by that picture. And, what's more, I can see how millions of other women would feel violated by it—women who have had similar experiences in their own lives, women who fear having those experiences, women who look up to me, women who have counted on me.Coming from the world of comedy, I've told and written a lot of jokes that I once thought were funny but later came to realize were just plain offensive. But the intentions behind my actions aren't the point at all. It's the impact these jokes had on others that matters. And I'm sorry it's taken me so long to come to terms with that.While I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does, I understand why we need to listen to and believe women’s experiences.I am asking that an ethics investigation be undertaken, and I will gladly cooperate.And the truth is, what people think of me in light of this is far less important than what people think of women who continue to come forward to tell their stories. They deserve to be heard, and believed. And they deserve to know that I am their ally and supporter. I have let them down and am committed to making it up to them."

Very different statement that acknowledges the effect on the other person AND other persons in the world. He is probably going to falter on for a bit, but a resignation would not be out of the question here. Note that every time the statement drifts to an excuse or a 'but' he smartly brought it back to the experience on the other side. Very different way to think about these things.